Strydom v Vendside Ltd [2009] EWHC 2130 (QB) (18 August 2009)

Strydom v Vendside Ltd [2009] EWHC 2130 (QB) (18 August 2009)

No term should be implied into the contract requiring the defendant not to mislead about costs, as such a term is not necessary for business efficacy; the contract was not unconscionable as the transaction was not oppressive; the claim was not time-barred due to deliberate concealment, but this did not affect the outcome.

Citation
[2009] EWHC 2130 (QB)
Parties
Claimant (appellant): Brian Strydom; Defendant (respondent): Vendside Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
18 August 2009
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / High Court Appeal From County Court Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Implied Terms, Unconscionable Bargain, Limitation, Misrepresentation
Contract Law Equity Implied Terms Unconscionable Bargain Limitation Misrepresentation

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Brian Strydom

Claimant (appellant)

Vendside Limited

Defendant (respondent)

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / High Court Appeal From County Court Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a term should be implied into the contract requiring the defendant not to mislead the claimant about costs or double-charging
  2. 2 Whether the contract was an unconscionable bargain
  3. 3 Whether the claim was time-barred under the Limitation Act 1980

Ratio Decidendi

No term should be implied into the contract requiring the defendant not to mislead about costs, as such a term is not necessary for business efficacy; the contract was not unconscionable as the transaction was not oppressive; the claim was not time-barred due to deliberate concealment, but this did not affect the outcome.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed